On the scandal of scandals by Harvey Daiho Hilbert

I have been barely keeping up with the various scandals in the Zen world. There are so many with often unhelpful angry comments in the response boxes on websites like Sweeping Zen that it is a challenge to read them all. Suffice to say, the house seems to be falling down. But, of course, it isn’t.

Scandals are part of the adult world and media today. Sex sells and as a result of the flood of sexual abuse content, I feel that people are now conditioned to have little ability to differentiate between consensual adult behavior and what is being referred to as “abuse.” Abuses of power require actual power. Zen teachers have no real power save that offered them by their students. In short, they have the power of a violin teacher or the power of a guru: it’s up to the student and teacher to establish these lines.

From my point of view, true adult learning requires the establishment of a perceived level playing field. In our Order, for example, people come and go. There is nothing holding anyone in place. If I or any of our teachers does something another feels inappropriate or offensive they are free to confront the “perpetrator,” tell another teacher, or leave, and they often have, perhaps not over ethical conduct, but over perceived offence or clear disagreements as to the practice of Zen.

Ethical conduct requires relations with those possessing what is referred to as moral agency, which is to say, their own authority and judgment as autonomous and responsible adults. If a student and teacher become friends, while not always a good idea, they are in the end, adults who are free to choose how and on what basis they relate: so, too, with regard to sexual relationships. Not a few Zen teachers and their students marry. At some point in the development of such marital relationship the couples breached, what the fundamentalists among us would call, an ethical boundary. We seem to be OK with that, but not a sexual relationship without a marriage. Interesting, this is, but how puritanical.

I am staunchly opposed to moral police. We have far too many willing to judge the conduct of others using psychological or deontological moral arguments to bolster their opinions. Such judgmentalism seems epidemic in our society. Context, age, relationship, are all tossed out the window and people simply judge using their own histories or a set of rigid moral principles as filters to understand and evaluate the conduct of others they do not know. This is, at best, lazy and at worst, ethically dangerous.

Now, rape, sexual harassment, and other forms of coercive behavior are clear breaches of ethical conduct and may result in a diminishment of moral agency. In such cases, it seems to me, both parties and the organization have responsibilities (although this is far too often not talked about). The victim in any such conduct has a responsibility to protect themselves and charge the alleged perpetrator to the extent possible. This is how victims become survivors and regain their own authority while at the same time recovering their moral agency. When victims do nothing, they maintain their victimhood and by omission allow rape and harassment to continue.

Perpetrators also have responsibilities. These include making an honest self-assessment, conferring with other teachers, conferring with a mental health professional, and so on, but most of all, they have an obligation to both stop the behavior and make amends when possible to the victim. Perpetrators have an obligation to address the issues surrounding their behavior once it has been uncovered, if not before.

Lastly, organizations should not be left off the ethical “hook” as far too often members of an organization are aware of abuse and chose to do little or nothing about it. We all, each of us, have a moral responsibility to address conduct we see as abusive. The question is how and within what context. We have no desire to see sangha members becoming the “moral police” of an organization. It is therefore important, it seems to me, that we have an open understanding and willingness to discuss these issues among ourselves as often and as generously as possible.

Frankly, I do not suggest I have any idea how to solve this problem, but I do know that simplistic solutions, name-calling, and the doing away with reasoned discourse are not helpful. Relations between students and priests are complex human relationships. While it is fine to create ethical standards and codes of conduct, these, like our precepts, should be guides rather than fundamentalist rules with which to selectively trash each other.

About Harvey Daiho Hilbert

Harvey Daiho Hilbert (born February 13, 1947) woke up to Zen after being shot in the head in combat in Vietnam in 1966. In spite of the resulting disability, Daiho went on to obtain a Masters and PH.D degree in Social Work and spent nearly thirty years offering contemplative practices to his clients. Daiho took up formal training in 1998 at Dharma Mountain Zendo in Cloudcroft, NM. He was ordained in 2000 and was given Dharma Transmission in 2005 by Ken Hogaku Shozen McGuire roshi. In 2000 he was installed as abbot of Daibutsuji Zen Temple and re-established the Zen Center of Las Cruces.

In 2005, he retired from his clinical practice and left Daibutsuji to establish the Order of Clear Mind Zen. The Order is based in Las Cruces, New Mexico and currently has affiliates in northern California, Virginia and West Texas. He recently retired as abbot, but continues his practice which includes Street Zen, frequent blog postings of his teaching, as well community work. In addition, he offers many educational group activities, as well as selected workshops specifically focused on recovery from war and violent trauma. Daiho is in a loving relationship with Kathryn Shukke Shin Hilbert. In his retirement, he has become a prolific artist. His work may be seen at http://daihozenart.blogspot.com.

59 comments

I have been following the discussions about sexual misconduct in the Zen community and I am shaking my head…. I see, the Zen community has come a long way…

Yes, you are right!

People are free to leave.

i did! About 20 years ago.

Before I left the Zen Center,

I sued for misconduct and settled out of court. After I left and sued, a senior priest came out of the woodwork and admitted to having had an affair with Roshi, who was married. The whole thing was particularly tragic, since this confession came after Roshi had died.

Don’t know if it makes any difference to anybody, but I am a Zen practitioner without a particular Sangha. I have not been able to become part of any Zen community, and it seems for good reason as not much seems to have changed in 20 years.

My practice in the past 20 years has been washing dishes and practicing aikido. That seems to be a good place for me to be, while you people sort things out.

You did the right thing. You had “moral agency” and used it. A bow to you. And your practice sounds exactly as it should be for all of us, an everyday practice. It sounds as though you want to practice with a sangha. Your hesitation is one of the tragic consequences of poor behavior on the part of others. I hope you find it within you to join a group or establish a sitting group of your own. Gassho

Actually, in this particular Sangha, the teacher had died and had not appointed a successor. A number of Dharma heirs were being considered for “the job” I got involved with one of the priests who was considered to become abbot. All of this happened in a community ,which was very secretive about relationships.

For example, there were two sangha members who were in a long term relationship, everyone knew about it, but they would not disclose it to the community.

The priest I was involved with behaved very secretively and would not disclose the relationship to the community, and when I disclosed it, all hell broke loose.

I tried to get the community to deal with this and deal with relationships openly, but they stonewalled me. The only way, I could get them to pay any attention was to sue them. Sad!

Shortly after that, a senior female priest admitted to having had an affair with the deceased Roshi, who was married. I can not imagine the grief of the widow, at the time of this disclosure.

So, I think that this shows that these things happen in a culture of secrecy.

Do away with the secrecy, and maybe there will be less problems?

I don’t have the answers either. I tried to be part of the solution a couple of decades ago.

Maybe it made a difference for that particular Zen Center. I wouldn’t know, because I have not been back there.

So, my practice is to wash the dishes. It’s a good practice. It gets the dishes clean. No moral conflicts… 😉

I totally agree that the root problem here is the all-pervading ignoble silence. If a relationship is conducted in the open, it will quickly become apparent if it is abusive or not. If it has to be kept secret, it most likely IS abusive. Why would you feel the need to hide it otherwise???

By imposing a “moral agency” agency standard on victims of sexual harassment and abuse, you are suggesting that people who have been traumatized are somehow invested with the ability to see clearly a direction to take, be it contacting authorities, or pressing a complaint with the sangha. Yet, the nature of this kind of priest abuse is insidious. All around the abuser are protectors and enablers. The victims are left alone, disempowered and damaged.

A recent documentary on a Zen priest’s victims illustrated the depth and severity of the trauma that these mostly young women suffered. After being traumatized, they were sometimes expelled from the sangha for complaining about Roshi’s aggressions. So, some left on their own, and some were told to leave. They then spent years is silent suffering; this is the nature of PTSD and trauma. In some cases, these young women contemplated suicide, and most reported deep long term psychological injuries.

Quote: “When victims do nothing, they maintain their victimhood and by omission allow rape and harassment to continue.”

There is a huge volume of research and expert opinion to show that rape victims are raped a second time when they disclose what happened. In fact, one of the greatest problems with rape is the difficulty victims have with coming forward with accusations because they are worried people will claim they “allowed the rape and harassment to continue”.

Sometimes victims keep their suffering secret to avoid being victimized all over again. By placing responsibility on the victim (“it was what she was wearing”, “she should know better”, “why didn’t she fight”, “she led him on”, “she’s an adult, she knew what she was getting into”) this article does nothing to encourage anyone to disclose abuse.

And it seems that, even after all this, the Enlightened Upper Caste is simply going to do what’s always been done to no avail — set up a committee and paper it all over.

Business as usual for the Zen Masters’ Franchise…

*Sigh*

Man, I really lost hope. They’re just not going to change. They won’t let go of their deluded power… It just makes me feel bad for the present and future victims of many kinds of “enlightened” abuse.

What a load of rotten spiritual phoniness.

*Sigh*

As the article points out, though, we’re all free to leave.

And you know, after years of wishful thinking, I think it’s time for me to leave — Buddhism in general and Zen in particular (which will possibly make some people very pleased). To be quite sincere, I’ve really come to think of it as a dysfunctional utopia. Time to move on. To tell you the truth, I feel more liberated than ever.

Near me there are plenty of Yoga Studios, Martial Arts classes, Art classes, Dance Classes and much more in additional to official and unofficial Zendo’s and Buddhist centres. Some of the Zen/Buddhist are near-cult-like and some are OK.

Lots of people who teach things just don’t care enough about Zen to stick a ‘May contain Zen’ label on it. Then there are the Tea Sellers.

From time to time I meet various people for coffee. If we dressed up and bowed it might be called dokusan or sanzen but we take it in turns being student and teacher and don’t take it seriously and don’t recognize any authority in the other. Not abiding in clarity.

Last night I was doing a pencil drawing of a Playboy model. It’s more interesting than staring at a wall but not that different.

Don’t leave Buddhism. Buddhism itself is a truly fine and noble path. The path itself started out 2500 years ago quite pure, quite peaceful and safe, and very healing. Along the way, the path has become a bit cluttered with greed, anger and delusion. Still, to walk away from what Buddha taught and the path he suggested would be a shame. Kind of like giving up swimming because you spent time in a dirty pool at a cheap hotel in Las Vegas. Come back to Buddhism’s stream… the water’s fine, I promise. 🙂

I’m just curious, did the Bhudda ever address Priests having sex with their students? I think most people in this country at least, feel “Cleargy” including Buddhists have an ethical responcibility to not boink their students. A Zen priest is in a position of authority in the Sangha, weather he or she wants to admit it or not. I think if most non Buddhists were aware of the lack of oversite, and consistant proffessional standards of Buddhist sects in this country, they would be surprised. The reason this keeps coming up in American Buddhism, is because it is often, an identifiable problem. ( Just ask members of the San Francisco zen center in the seventies what kind of problems arise.) My dad taught me, it was best not to fish off the company peir. So far, that advise has worked for me…

This was good advise, but a bit simplistic. The fact is romance occurs in all sorts of situations: offices, clubs, etc. My questions are about the complexities. Is there a difference, for example, between two people who fall in love in a sangha where one is a priest and a priest who is a sexual preditor? In my eyes, there is, indeed, a difference. We ought not lump them together, yet we often do, it seems to me, when the “romance” goes south and one of the two parties cries fowl. In cases of romantic involvements, don’t you think both parties are responsible? Just asking.

Unfortunately, the idea that everyone who walks into a zendo is a strong adult who can see through the manipulations of a preditory Roshi is simplistic, too – there are too many examples where that falls through. Society, as a whole, recognizes that people in the positions that Roshis play should be held accountable – much more so than their victims – in that there are laws that would have Shimano in jail, depending on the state. I think many would find that those sanghas that have strong ethical codes are decent places to practice. Moreover, I think the dogmatic aversion of ‘moral police’ that many people who practice Zen have needs to be examined. There are times when they are absolutely needed. Sorry if they upset people or make them uncomfortable, but sometimes there is a need for real action. No one really lives in the absolute.

I dunno…
When folks say that people are being “too moralistic”, my first thought is that “about damn time”.

In the Noble 8-fold path, aside from the first two: Right View and Right Intention, the last 6 are split equally between Ethics and Concentration. Zen seems to only want to focus on the Concentration bit, and ignore the Morality bit, thinking that if they become accomplished mediators then the Ethics bit will be taken care of….
Time has shown that to be a mistake.

Has anyone even read the Vinaya Pitaka?
Does anyone know that having sex as a monk is a serious monastic transgression on par with murder?
Here are some examples of the Buddha’s own words:

“”Worthless man, [sexual intercourse] is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done… Haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging.”

‘Worthless man, haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven’t I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell…

“Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful.”

To have sex as a monk in the Buddha’s day meant expulsion from the Order -for life-
Buddhism = Moralistic.
Maybe it’s time for Western Buddhists to admit that.

The distinction between Monastic and Lay practice has become blurred here in the West. Most monks have day jobs, have kids, own houses and 401k’s and live lives identical with lay practitioners. The only difference nowadays it seems is that monks wear black robes, and lay practitioners wear some other color…
Yes yes, I know that monks were forced to marry in Japan because of the Meiji Restoration, but 5 minutes into checking out *why* that was, folks will quickly see that it wasn’t to strengthen Zen in Japan.

It seems to me that most folks want to say that there IS a difference between monk and laity – that’s why these scandals hurt so much. It seems to me people want to hold monks up to a different standard… it ALSO seems to me that the people who DON’T want to be held to a different standard are ordained monks, abbots and teachers… Some even try try sidestep the whole issue by saying they aren’t monks, they are only priests – and there are laws on the books in 13 states against clergy/parishioners sexual relationships… so the issue is thornier – with very real consequences.

Maybe Westerners should admit that Buddhism is a MORAL practice.
Maybe Western “monks” should admit they are not “home leavers” by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe Western “monks” should admit these things, do some serious soul searching, and disrobe – that they are held to a very different moral standard, and if they cannot submit to that, then they had no business being ordained.

Maybe I’ll be called moralistic for suggesting these things.

(this isn’t directed at anyone in particular, just thinking out loud.)

I do find useful to see sometimes how *not* complex the Buddha’s own point of view is on the subject, to give long pause to those who would say things are “complex”, and thus no changing of the status-quo should occur.

(But to be perfectly honest, I see no problem with their being happily married monks in committed monogamous relationships…)

It’s the Genpo’s, Sazaki’s and Shimano’s of the world who I have no patience with – repeated, systematic, institutionalized abuse that spans decades from people who should know better… as well as those types who would reduce their position, their robes and their vows as if it were a fancy sports car to bag them a bird from a sangha (theirs or another’s) every time their “all-too-human” heart gets a crush…

Agreed! Even with my layperson’s limited study and understanding, there is nothing complex about Buddha’s advice on this I think.

It may be difficult, but it is really very simple.

I don’t see how developing paramitas is consistent with cultivating sensual desires. I say this after fasting today to educate myself in the mastery of desire, because I felt I was asking of others what I could not myself do.

It is not a problem of sexuality. It is a problem of mind. When we see that, there is nothing at all complex about it. The mind is what makes it complex.

Shodo, when you write “The distinction between Monastic and Lay practice has become blurred here in the West.”, that is not quite correct. It was in Japan where that line was breached, and it is only “monks” in the Japanese Zen tradition that now in the West live a perfectly regular lay life and call themselves monks. All other buddhist schools, also in the west, expect their monks to be celibate and follow the Vinaya. AFAIK, for this reason, bhikkus outside of Japan do not consider Japanese monks bhikkus. This particular confusion was created in Japan and apparently its now quite harmful here.
In the Kwan Um School of Zen (in the Korean tradition), for instance, monks are asked to disrobe if they have a sexual relationship, even if that was a perfectly happy and consensual relationship (Algernon has recounted one example of this somewhere in these pages).

Matthias said:
“It was in Japan where that line was breached, and it is only “monks” in the Japanese Zen tradition that now in the West live a perfectly regular lay life and call themselves monks…All other Buddhist schools, also in the west, expect their monks to be celibate and follow the Vinaya. AFAIK, for this reason, bhikkus outside of Japan do not consider Japanese monks bhikkus.”

Ah my bad for not being specific, I was only speaking of the Zen tradition – my usage of “monks” was too general. I’ve also heard that most other Buddhist monks outside of the Zen tradition think this…

Kindof crazy huh? I wonder how many folks know that Japanese/American Zen monks aren’t even considered monks/bhikkus by most other Buddhist traditions… if that was enforced, how many “monks” would run screaming from the centers i wonder…

Speaking of the “Zen tradition” is still too broad… Unfortunately what is known as Zen in popular culture ist almost exclusively the Japanese form, which has been seriously corrupted by Japanese militarism, nationalism and the actions of the emperor. Korean Zen f.i. is closer to the original Chinese Chan than either Rinzai or Soto. Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean Zen monks all observe the Vinaya and are (generally and officially…) expected to be celibate.

The Kwan Um School of Zen in the Korean tradition, both in America and in Europe differentiates between celibate monk teachers and lay teachers and most of the teachers are indeed lay people. Sexual relations with students are not exactly encouraged, but it is acknowledged that healthy relationships can form there too. See its Statement of Ethics: “Teachers’ Special Responsibilities: Teachers in our school have a special responsibility to take into account the welfare of students. A teacher must always ask her/himself how any action will affect the student in the long run. The recent history of Buddhist organizations in America shows very clearly that sexual relationships between teachers and students can lead to great pain and disharmony within the sangha. On the other hand, many teachers have entered into loving, long-term relationships with someone who was their student. Therefore there is no easy rule to guide these relationships. The sangha does have the right to expect that our teachers will act within the highest standards of care and mindfulness. The Third Precept is “I vow to abstain from misconduct done in lust.” Lust can be defined as a self-centered action which is “for me” and doesn’t take into account the needs of another. If a teacher’s relationship with a student becomes sexualized, two steps are strongly recommended: 1. There should be a 3 to 6 month suspension of the teacher/student relationship, and 2. The teacher should choose another teacher in the sangha in order to discuss the relationship and receive guidance from her/him. In this way the relationship will be witnessed by another teacher who can hold the perspective of caring for the student, the teacher, and the entire sangha.”

But this crap with Genpo, Eido and Sazaki…? When a teacher uses their sangha’s the way they used their sanghas…? It’s not absolutely not prudishness to take a decisive stand to say “NO” to that kind of behavior.

It just seems sad the the precepts seem like something that never got mentioned in Zen until those 3 guys got busted – when folks went public there was a chorus of “Thou shalt not speak of others errors and faults!” 😛

At least you’re getting down here in the pit with us peons. I agree that both parties share responsibility with how a relationship proceeds, but the Roshi/Priest is an official with considerable formal authority to direct how things proceed in the sangha. That is a heavy responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Such relationships are not the same as those outside the sangha.

Unless the Roshi/Priest is operating under some ethical guidelines either internal or externally applied we will continue to have these scandals.

The “complexity” argument that Brad Warner, and now you, put forward, risks appearing to want the status quo in order to take advantage of it. An outside agency, as has been proposed here, might cramp your style but would go a long ways towards preventing the abuses we’ve all become sick of. Sasaki Roshi said he’d have to stop teaching if his behavior was exposed to the outside world and he used that to keep his students quiet. A zen teacher’s reputation is his/her’s most valuable commodity and leaning on it is the only way to rein in those who get out of control.

I’m sure a real love between teacher and student can still find a way to thrive in an environment where the teacher has to operate under some restrictions while in an official capacity.

One ethical guideline that could apply to the student would be — if a students wants to have a romantic relationship with a teacher she/he should be required to drop out of the sangha while doing so and the teacher would make that a requirement before proceeding in a romantic relationship with a student. Perhaps there should also be a time period before proceeding with such a relationship as is the case with therapists.

I think my views may seem simplistic to those Priests who have found themselves in situations like that themselves, such as sexual relationships with students while legally married to someone else as an example. I would imagine to them it would seem quite complex. I know the state of New Mexico along with other states don’t find it to complex to make it a violation of state law as already mentioned by the originating columnist for this publication, but since unlike most religions in this country, Buddhism has no real oversight, councel, or professional standard, these points are debatable…

Dear Steve Jisho, good to see you again. You are correct in the situation you describes, both morally and legally assuming the marital couple took vows of fidelity anf did not have an “open” marraige. There are organizations that oversee its members in Zen and, as far as I know, the offending priests of late have been members. Part of the debate is over the question regarding why teachers did little to nothing to stop alleged abuse. At anyrate, we Zen Buddhists do have precepts to act as guides. But e are also striving through our practice to see the interconnectedness of all things, as well. Precepts, fundamentally applied, become black and white, thus making it impossible to see the context of a situation. From my point of view, context, or the interrelated and interconnected nature of things is what our practice is about.So here’s the thing: we have precepts and we have oversight (in some lineages) and yet, as in all professions (and I do not believe the Zen priesthood should be regarded as a profession) we still have violations. Until we grapple with the complexities and see the human dimension, we will not be successful in addressing this very important issue. Gassho.

UNDERSTANDING is the key to any solutions for problems. deep understanding as the Buddha says is essential. Sex is human nature and as long as we defy it such issues will keep on cropping up be it zen or other traditions. I have witnessed same issues with hindu saints here in India. Why??? simple just as we breathe, eat and sleep sleep is more of a physical aspect a necessity up until we need them that is. you cannot force urself out of it. Just like you are vegetarian or non vegetarian depends upon you and not the food. it has to be a natural decision. Eeven people who have had decided might find themselves failing in some instances so if you want sex out of your system them you have to fight life long 24/7 and then of course the greatest secret is the law of attraction. the more you fight the more you attract the same energy. so this sex issue should not be addressed as a scandal it should be UNDERSTOOD and then STOP further scandalous talk. what use is this talking bla bla bla about sex and scandal. Come on masters and students face YOUR WALL and SIT still.

If the adjectives “puritanical” and “simplistic” are removed, if “‘moral police'” – even with scare quotes is removed, then I’m as unclear about the upshot here as I am about the comments from many others weighing in on this and similar matters.

I agree on the point of the complexity of all human interactions and relationships. But it is because of that complexity, coupled with some personal and collective aspiration for the realization of the Four Noble Truths in our lives, that things like ethical guidelines, grievance committees, and the like are established in places of practice. And while it’s true that romances will develop, momentary lapses of judgment will occur, wagons will be fallen off, etc., the case in question is NOT one of a once-off or thrice-off deal. We’re talking years of activity and dozens of students involved. Appeals to personal moral agency here fall wide of the mark; there’s been an institutionalization of something when it gets to this level.

James Ford fell into the same muddle in his recent post, praising the guidelines established in his lineage yet inviting us to understand that we all have sexual needs, etc. This is like making the observation, when assessing one of those 1,000+ lb. persons we hear about from time to time, that “well, there are good nutrition guidelines, but they’re not meant to be absolute and, let’s not forget, we all like food and need to eat.” What work is THAT doing? It’s non-puritanical and non-judgmental, but does it HELP? (I am assuming we can agree that weighing in at over a half a ton is not healthy, right?)

I guess I’m inviting more people to just drop the gingerfooted maneuvering here and be willing to call things as they are. Otherwise, Zen runs the risk of becoming just another boutique practice in the social landscape, not the vehicle of liberation and release it most profoundly is. Sentinent beings, ourselves included, are mired in suffering. Let us help each other out some. If one or the other of us sees more clearly than we do listen to him or her. If we can see wherein another is stuck, let’s say so and offer effective counsel.

We don’t need moral police, and ethical guidelines already abound, but what we do need is a cross lineage national organization with agreed upon standards, grievance procedure, consequences and redemptive path. As Buddhists I believe we will not become too rigid, but firm is good.

As zen teachers we are not psychotherapists, but in my opinion since transference issues are even more likely to occur in us and our sanghas, we must learn to be MORE professional in our associations with our students not less. If Mental Health Counselors can have a national professional organization that crosses various schools of training and style that don’t compete with school or state policies, why can’t Zen priests from various schools and countries get together to agree to some basic national ethical standards concerning the student teacher relationship.

I believe that if such a national cross lineage professional organization existed that decades of abuse in several sanghas might well have been eliminated or mightily reduced. It is time for Zen to grow up. Students need to be able to trust that teachers have their best interests in mind and are not using them for their own gratification. If a student believes they have been violated or taken advantage of in some way they should be able to check the behavior against standards set by the national organization and have a way to launch a grievance procedure at that level. Local sanghas and even whole schools have proven time and again that they are woefully ill equipped to adequately confront the poor behavior of a core teacher.

I will be making this pitch to the AZTA at their next annual meeting in June, but frankly I’m doubtful that this “collegial” organization will be willing to become the professional organization that I think is sorely needed.

And what happens to organizations, teachers, sanghas that choose not to join this “voluntary” organization once it is established?

Why do you think independent teachers and sanghas are going to want to give autonomy to some self-appointed committee somewhere because of the problems of people outside of their own sanghas when it comes to keeping their robes on?

In theory Dharma Transmission is supposed to be the thing that guarantees that a Zen Teacher can actually ‘Teach Zen’. It’s very much like a franchise.

Now Starbucks and others run a franchise model. An individual store is run by someone who is independent but uses the brand and everything else to sell coffee.

Next door to him may be an independent coffee store that may be be brilliant or it may be dire. You don’t know until it is tried. So you can go into a branded coffee chain and know that what you get stands a good chance of being consistent or you can go to a local outfit which may be better or worse – you just don’t know until you try it.

Imagine that Starbucks was created 2000 years ago. The only model available was that one cafe owner would pass the shop on to to the next gen or create new cafes using the Starbucks. Within a few generations no two coffee shops would be the same. Each one would be proclaiming that they are the True Starbucks and the others are fakers.

There are only two ways to reset the pattern.

Zen is not really a religion it’s a wrapper around a truth. If you practice deeply enough the truth is rediscovered and you no longer need the wrapper. Just as if a Cafe owner had gone back to Starbucks HQ for brand training.
Cafe owners compare notes. Each has an incomplete understanding of the truth and by talking to others they can identify where there is truth and where there is tradition.

The current state of play is something like the worst of both worlds – even if you choose a Starbucks store you don’t know if it’s Starbucks coffee you will receive or something else. What’s worse a student may not have the experience of a good Starbucks to know the difference. Even worse the owner might not know either.

The student thinks “It says Starbucks on the outside so it must be Starbucks coffee”

The owner thinks “I’m using the Starbucks brand so I must be serving Starbucks coffee”

In one corner Peter and Grace are arguing that Zen is a religion with Clergy and Congregation. In another corner Brad is arguing that Zen is not a Religion. Both are using their Lineage as proof of their case. That’s the issue.

These various scandals show Zen Teachers and Students falling into the Starbucks Cup fallacy – because I’m serving something in a Starbucks Cup it must be Starbucks Coffee.

They might join because they want “The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” for their Zen Center. If it were widely known that there was an independent organization with ethical standards and procedures that a Zen Center agreed with and complied with, then students could choose organizations that met the criteria for the “GHSOA”.

But there are a number of obstacles: (1) You’re right that not all Zen Centers would join. (2) Publicizing it to the ordinary person curious about Zen and looking for a place to practice would require a budget and a national education campaign. (3) Since there are many “denominations” of Zen as well as sub-sets and lineages within those “denominations,” (Soto, Rinzai, Diamond Sangha, Ordinary Mind, White Plum, Kapleau’s Lineage, Mountains and Rivers Order, Qwan Um, Chan, etc., etc.) — each with their own standards for transmission, and some where once transmission cannot be revoked, as well as standards for priests and monks — a cross-denominational ethical certification organization would not have the power or authority to “de-frock” a Zen teacher/monk/priest whom it deemed to be unethical. The best they could do would be to keep a list of approved Zen teachers/Zen Centers, and maybe also “disapproved” Zen teachers/Zen Centers. But there could be legal ramifications for public “disapproval” — such as lawsuits for defamation — if they’re not very very careful.

All good points about various difficulties, there are similar difficulties about pursuing better gun control, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to move things forward. At the very least a national professional organization could as Carol said offer a “GHSOA” for participating groups and offer a national level for complaints to be heard and vetted. In my mind this little bit would be a huge step forward.

I doubt we can trust Zen roshis or teacher to police themselves. They haven’t done a good job at any of the places where there have been incidents, usually just covering it up. You’d be better off with an independent third party doing it.

I have a few observations on why my dharma does not meet with the outlook presented.

“Angry comments” are not of themselves helpful or unhelpful. And in fact any comment is just a comment. It might helpful to some and not to others. Why do we have to reify it?

Violin teachers don’t adhere to a millenial spiritual practice which explicitly teaches cutting off desire, nor to violin students go to their teachers for advice on how to conduct their lives. To equate one with the other in the context of this discussion is obtuse.

One does not need to be a “fundamentalist” to identify a moral breach. In fact one can be quite moderate, liberal or even heretical in the dharma and still see the breach.

I don’t see many people saying in these comments that a sexual relationship without marriage is unacceptable, but one with marriage is. The issue is not marriage but how teachers and students cope with their desires. The model that has been proposed is that if feelings develop to the point of distraction from practice, the teacher should remove herself or himself from that roll and continue within the laity where this individual’s conduct will not do harm to the sangha. There is nothing resembling puritanism here.

A cry of pain is not a moral judgement. If you have ever disturbed a wasp’s nest you can see that being angry as hell is a perfectly natural part of life sometimes. Coping skillfully with anger is no different than coping skillfully with desire.

Rape is a severe offense but its severity or nature does not take away from the harm caused by lesser or more subtle forms of exploitation. It is a reduction to the absurd to equate charges of rape with the kinds of abuses that people are taking issue with here. If it’s not rape that doesn’t mean that people don’t still get harmed. And sometimes people have a hard time with even a level playing field, especially if they have a history of abuse either themselves or in their families. Compassion is lacking in your view, I think.

If you seriously want reasoned discourse, you might want to include some of your own.

Thanks for your response. I really thought I was the only one who ever read this passage.

All I can say is there are a lot of “Buddhist” monks around who have managed somehow to create a group consensus, part enabled by Meiji, part enabled by 60’s hippie culture, that allows this aspect of Buddhism to be expunged from the record. It shows, if anything, how powerful sexuality is, and that even monks will lie to themselves instead of confronting a powerful sense pleasure that is one of the ways we bind ourselves to the wheel of suffering.

Buddha once said that if there was another human force as strong as sexuality, he would have never attained Nirvana. Or did I just make that up?

Buddha’s final challenge under the bodhi tree was Mara’s jade women. There are countless examples in the teachings of what you point to, and rightly so, it seems.

Followers or organized religion, and zen buddhism is no exception, spend a great deal of time coming up with ways to wiggle out of commandments, precepts, and covenants that define their practice.

Has it occured to anyone else that this problem is not unique to zen, and that in virtually any organized religion I can think of, this behavior is frowned upon? There are always exceptions, but what about the rule?

If all the world’s religions agree killing is generally wrong, we can accept that as spiritually sound, universally good advice. But if all the world’s religions say sexual relations between religious leaders and their followers is generally wrong, suddenly that’s fundamentalism with no place in contemporary zen.

I wonder how many Zen teachers are married to or in a loving relationship with someone from their sangha? I don’t know if anyone has done a survey and has this information, but it might be helpful to put things in perspective.

I do believe there is a world of difference between a sexual predator who repeatedly coerces women (or men or children) into sex and a Zen teacher or priest who forms a loving relationship with someone from the sangha. I agree that such relationships can be disruptive and difficult for the sangha. I’m not sure that’s a good enough reason to forbid them, always, in every circumstance.

What about teachers who are married or in a loving relationship before they come to the sangha? Do their spouses take part in the sangha? Do they meditate with everyone else? Do they attend sesshin? Do they go to dokusan with their spouse? Do they go to sangha social functions? Or do they never appear?

If I were to fall in love with my teacher and he with me, should I leave the sangha that I have known and sat with for years?

I don’t know the answers, but I think these questions need to be part of the discussion, and the answers may be “it depends.”

Carol,
yes, we are human and we relate to each other physically. Members of a Sangha should be able to engage in loving relationships. Why not? However, when a relationship develops between a teacher and a student or a priest and a student, the relationship should be disclosed.

This is not usually done, and this is what causes the problem.

I participated in a seshin at John Daido Lori’s place in Upstate New York about 20 yrs ago and was impressed, when it was announced that two priests had become involved in a relationship. I thought that was the right thing to do. Announce it!
A relationship is always part of a community. Why do relationships have to be kept secret in a Zen community?

I’m married 21 years to a “student” of Chobo-Ji where I teach. We met and fell in love at Quaker meeting; she came to the Zen group; we both trained for years at Chobo-Ji when Genki Takabayshi was still abbot. We were married at the Quaker meeting with Genki Takabayshi officiating. When I became abbot, we never for a moment doubted that we would both sit together under the same roof of Chobo-Ji. We did have some doubts about her doing koan work with me, difficult at first, but we worked it out. She is not interested in being ordained, or becoming a “Dharma Heir” so I feel no conflict working koans with her.

Good Morning All, Thank you for your many and thoughtful comments. I am sorry that I have not replied to each. I have been ill with a serious head and chest cold over the last week. I am happy that the discourse has been both thoughtful and civil. I do want to say something about the “puritan” and “moral” aspects of these comments. I struggle with the tendency to lump all sexual contact between teacher and student into the same pile. Abuse of authority includes coercion and manipulation or it is not, by definition, “abuse.” Romance between consenting adults who possess “moral agency” is hardly abuse. It may violate some understandings of the precepts, but then again, it may not. This is why these issues are complex. Puritanical, derived from Puritanism, is associated at least in the common vernacular, with the notion that we ought eliminate desire. This may seem heretical to some, but not all desire is, in my opinion, good to eliminate. However, attachment and/or investment in desire of one type or another is not a good thing. We are human beings, blessed with natural desires. On the desire to support a moral world we can agree, yet morality is based in culture and religion. If we were to have and enforce a “moral” society, we would need, per force, to have an agreed upon moral code which must be based in something. What might that be? Typically we look to philosophy or religion for such a basis, although some may seek it in science or humanism. The selection of a moral basis may not sit well with adherents to other moral foundations. We cannot use a so-called “Judeo-Christian” basis as no such basis exists. Judaism bases its code in the Torah, including the Talmudic interpretations of the Law. Christianity is split into hundreds of sub-groups. Islam is also split. And the Buddha Way has as many understandings and interpretations as, I daresay, it has adherents. Again, very complex. My point in this post was to simply suggest that not all behaviors be piled together. May you each be a blessing in the universe.

My three day fast in protest of this article ends today. By resisting the desire, in fact the necessity to eat, I have suffered stomach pains, restlessness, and headache. Each moment has been a realization of the nature of mind. If a layperson can accomplish this with simple will power, it seems to me that someone who proposes to dedicate their life as a monk can do without groping their students, even if both want to. If there is any merit in this action I dedicate it to sentient beings everywhere who struggle with desire.

I know ultimately, this is… like… his opinion, MAN… but still an interesting perspective.

We, in my opinion, are moral agents… Are we autonomous however…?
The precepts are vows – something imposed from the outside that limits behavior – Limits “freedom”, and forces us to behave in a certain way… there are many ways of interpreting the 10 Grave Precepts (like not clouding the mind by watching a marathon of “Honey Boo Boo”), but all too often we forget that there is a *literal* interpretation as well… and it’s talking about drugs and alcohol.

(Heh… autonomous, freedom, force… throw in the word “statist” and I just might win my game of Libertarian Bingo I started playing this morning…^^)

I’m a little surprised by how much I’ve posted in here recently so I’m going to spin off some thoughts into a separate blog – WotIRote.Blogspot.com. It’s at a tangent to what’s going on here and is not for everyone but some may be interested.

I don’t know I am sure I am over simplifying like I often do, but I would ask if asked to decide anything if the actions created suffering? Real and genuine concrete suffering, not mental stirring, after the fact negative reflections from a change of mind, others’ input, opinions and clinging to ideas, desires, control, rules, my way and understanding is the right way or anything like that. Or was it an act between two grown consenting adults that did not create suffering? Real suffering. No real suffering, not much issue to me on such an act. Predatory or taking sex creates suffering, two adults choosing of free will, hmmm I don’t know if so… Maybe if they are doing something behind an agreed monogamous partner’s back but that is between those individuals and their partners even if one involved is a teacher not the rest of the world; which really should find a new thing to invest in rather than in someone else’s pants. Being a gay man I know what it is like to have perfectly acceptable adult sexuality and have people tell me it is wrong, when quite frankly it isn’t and I know so because it doesn’t create any actual and real suffering, I don’t take sex and I don’t harass anyone or mislead anyone to get it, only and expression of love and a positive interaction.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

About Harvey Daiho Hilbert

Harvey Daiho Hilbert (born February 13, 1947) woke up to Zen after being shot in the head in combat in Vietnam in 1966. In spite of the resulting disability, Daiho went on to obtain a Masters and PH.D degree in Social Work and spent nearly thirty years offering contemplative practices to his clients. Daiho took up formal training in 1998 at Dharma Mountain Zendo in Cloudcroft, NM. He was ordained in 2000 and was given Dharma Transmission in 2005 by Ken Hogaku Shozen McGuire roshi. In 2000 he was installed as abbot of Daibutsuji Zen Temple and re-established the Zen Center of Las Cruces.

In 2005, he retired from his clinical practice and left Daibutsuji to establish the Order of Clear Mind Zen. The Order is based in Las Cruces, New Mexico and currently has affiliates in northern California, Virginia and West Texas. He recently retired as abbot, but continues his practice which includes Street Zen, frequent blog postings of his teaching, as well community work. In addition, he offers many educational group activities, as well as selected workshops specifically focused on recovery from war and violent trauma. Daiho is in a loving relationship with Kathryn Shukke Shin Hilbert. In his retirement, he has become a prolific artist. His work may be seen at http://daihozenart.blogspot.com.

About Sweeping Zen

Established in 2009 as a grassroots initiative, Sweeping Zen is a digital archive of information on Zen Buddhism. Featuring in-depth interviews, an extensive database of biographies, news, articles, podcasts, teacher blogs, events, directories and more, this site is dedicated to offering the public a range of views in the sphere of Zen Buddhist thought. We are also endeavoring to continue creating lineage charts for all Western Zen lines, doing our own small part in advancing historical documentation on this fabulous import of an ancient tradition. Come on in with a tea or coffee. You're always bound to find something new.

Sweeping Zen is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.